Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Very good, FineWine, she was not. She died from typhus like most inmates who died in the camps.

But how many people know that?

So why is it that of all persons they choose her as the icon of the holocaust, where she was killed as a consequence of the war effort of the Allies. A good laywer could defend the case that she was (indirectly and unintentionally) killed by the Allies rather than the Germans. Her sister, same story. Her father, Otto Frank, was even treated in a hospital and survived the war and the camps. But that doesn't match at all with the conventional horror explanation of what happened in the camps.

I knew it...and I never read Anne Frank's diary. I think most people who have heard of Anne Frank know. My recollection was they said it explicitly when I visited the Frank house in Amsterdam.

But, here's the bigger question, it seems to me, what threat to the great German Reich did a 15 year old girl pose that she ended up in a camp where thousands of other people were exposed to and dying of typhus (one must assme because of the unsanitary and poor conditions)?

Why, in short, was a 15 year old girl behind barbed wire in the first place? Why was her sister there? Why was her mother there? What was the reason?

Ah, they were Jews. So, the German occupation government of Holland -- not by your estimation at all interested in illiminating Jews by any means other than maybe benign neglect -- arrested -(sorry took them into protective custody for their own good) children and shipped them to a camp where food was not available and sanitary conditions were so terrible that the children, got sick and died.

Now, take the "gas chambers" out of the equation for a moment (which you really can't because the orders and engineering drawings for the building of the gas chambers and crematoria are available), what you have here is a systematic effort by a government (Nazi) Germany to, at the very least, put children into a facility where their chances of survival (because of food shortages and unsanitary conditions) were minimal.

In short: a government sponsored program to incarcerate and starve childrento death or otherwise expose them to deadly disease. That death was as certain as a gas chamber. It was part of a deliberate Nazi government goal. And, putting Jews in harms way was a particular and specific goal of the operation.

But then, your not really arguing, are you, that the Nazis weren't targeting Jews? Or that Jews died? Your argument is with the assertion of the technique of gassing Jews, correct? Or is it all of the alleged deaths? The mass shootings in the Ukraine? The death by Ghettoization in Poland in Eastern Europe? The medical experimentation? The gassing of non-jews but mentally defective germans? The systematic starvation and death by exposure of millions of Russian POWs?

And, if at the end of the day, only a million Jews dies, hell 100,00, and they died specifically because they were the target of racist policies by the Nazis that singled them out...than it seems to me you've got a holocaust of one kind or another -- and one of such proportion that every one who hung at Nurenberg deserved to be hung for.

My point is, if all the Germans did was allow one 15/16 year old girl to die in a camp, surrounded by dogs, gaurds, electric wires, and they allowed her to die because of starvation and exposure to otherwise controllable conditions such as typhus, than all of Germany and its leadership is guilty of murder. Multiply that number by ten, 100 or 1,000,000 or 6,000,000 it doesn't make it any less of a horrible crime...

Obviously, there is no level of proof that you would accept, so why pretend?

__________________Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.

Perhaps they fled to the East, just like many German Jews fled to Britain or America during the thirties.
Same story. We cannot decide here where they did go to.
That's true. So where did they go, that's the question.

Fine.

So, where are the Russian villages that saw such an increase in population at the time? The one with a high proportions of Jews and the many inhabitation dating back from WWII?

Where are the stories of villagers? Reports from soldiers on both sides? Such a massive number of people would have migrated. And it was a war-front too, so people where actively watching for people crossing. They could have been commandos after all. How come we are not crawling under reports from these soldiers?

And why didn't these people come forward at any time after the war?

There is no reason to believe any migration happen.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence for the holocaust.

You don't understand, to this troll, the absence of evidence that Jews moved "East" and lived happilly ever after is evidence that Jews moved East and lived happilly ever after.

It also shows his intellectual limitations as well as the limitations of his argument. He will not accept witness statements, trial, documents, photographs and movies as "proof"....but where there are no documents, photos, witnesses, etc. such as in the fantasy "maybe they moved East..." that is all the proof he needs.

__________________Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.

Nobody denies the massive deportation programs the Nazis carried out. But how do you know these people died?! Did the evil Nazis send a card? Of course not. They were missing. There was no internet back then to make it easy for people to find each other again. You yourself give the example of people from Belgium ending up in Britain and America. How should they be able to find each other once separated? Almost impossible. You are assuming they died but you do not know.

Because it is so common for people to vanish from the face of the Earth and never to be seen again...

Millions of people don't disappear into thin air. Hitler said he wanted to kill inferior races. Perhaps I'm a tad aprioristic but I think Hitler had them killed.

I see that Eichmann's defense has already been brought up. In the same vein we might note that of all the defendants at the IMT in Nuremberg, not a single one even tried to deny the reality of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany.

Instead of "hey- this is a put-up job! None of this ---- ever happened!" it was, uniformly, "I am not responsible for these acts", which implicitly recognized their reality.

Why would that be?

__________________Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.

I see that Eichmann's defense has already been brought up. In the same vein we might note that of all the defendants at the IMT in Nuremberg, not a single one even tried to deny the reality of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany.

Instead of "hey- this is a put-up job! None of this ---- ever happened!" it was, uniformly, "I am not responsible for these acts", which implicitly recognized their reality.

Why would that be?

Off topic a little, but didn't Eichmann's defense inspire the Milgram experiment?

I see that Eichmann's defense has already been brought up. In the same vein we might note that of all the defendants at the IMT in Nuremberg, not a single one even tried to deny the reality of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany.

Instead of "hey- this is a put-up job! None of this ---- ever happened!" it was, uniformly, "I am not responsible for these acts", which implicitly recognized their reality.

Why would that be?

Isn't this a truly amazing phenomenon? All these Nazi war criminals on trial for their lives and NOT ONE of them thinks to deny the reality underlying
the charges against them! Holocaust-denying psychos will refexively bray that "they were coerced." Excuse me, how is it possible to coerce someone who is going to be executed?

The Holocaust-deniers usually play a stupid game. They find two survivors of the camps, doddering nonagenarians, who disagree over the color of a particularly sadistic guard's eyes. Aha, crow the evil jackasses, that proves there was no guard! Well, it doesn't, but it also skips past a far more important point.

NONE of the leading Nazis ever thought of the arguments advanced by today's Nazis.

Clearly, the US, British, French and of course the Russians had so brain-washed them that not one was willing to speak up in an open court...when you consider that Stalin couldn't even pull that off in the show trials (prisoners who tried to recant in open court who were hauled back for a little more intensive interogation before confessing to capitalist/facist spying) it is pretty impressive. Go Allies!

__________________Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.

didnt the Nazis report that Lithuania was "Judenrein"? did they accomplish this by sending der Juden to Disneyland?

its one thing to debate the exact number of Jewish Holocaust deaths. it is between 4.5 million and 7 million.

but to say that the Holocaust didn't happen or that only 200,000 died..is the height of absurdity.

I know that "der, die, das" is quite complicated for English people to learn, but whenever it is more than one thing/person, it's "die". So one person is "der Mann", "die Frau", "das Kind", but if it's more than one person, it's "die Männer", "die Frauen", "die Kinder" - or in your case, "die Juden".

Concerning the topic itself, I'm seriously wondering what they teach in Dutch schools nowadays concerning the period of Nazi-Germany/WW2, especially concering local events at the time:

In 1939 there were some 140,000 Dutch Jews living in the Netherlands, among them some 25,000 German-Jewish refugees who had fled Germany in the 1930s (other sources claim that some 34,000 Jewish refugees entered the Netherlands between 1933 and 1940, mostly from Germany and Austria [3]). *snip*

In 1945 only about 35,000 of them were still alive. The exact number of "full Jews" who survived the Holocaust is estimated to be 34,379 (of whom 8,500 were part of a mixed marriage and thus spared from deportation and possible death in the Nazi concentration camps)

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

Balloney. It took the combined effort of Russians, British and Americans to bring them down, outnumbering 1:7. So if the Germans were inefficient than the Allies must have been real incompetents.

It's well established that Germany wasted a huge amount of resources on militarily useless projects. The V-1 and V-2 weapons programs are another two examples.

__________________"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

"Balloney. It took the combined effort of Russians, British and Americans to bring them down, outnumbering 1:7. So if the Germans were inefficient than the Allies must have been real incompetents. "

Balloney. It was really more a matter of time...after the failure of the Russian campaign in 1940, it would have been very difficult for Germany to win. The interjection of the Brits and the US into the war over the next couple of years just sped up the process. But, in any event, it was pretty well over after Stalingrad in 42...and the Brits and Americans hadn't even landed in Europe.

Hitler was a terrible general...his politics and military incompetence pretty well seald his fate early on. He wasted resources and men. Nazi policy made every occupation just that rather than a liberation (which the Russians feared). He had to hold land and that required resources that he couldn't throw at his oponents. What equipment and training advantages Hitler took to war he pissed away...and even Speer (who did a relatively amazing job of marshalling resources...often at gun-point leading to 100s of thousands of slave-labor deaths) couldn't figure out how to produce enough to save the situation (little less where the recruits were going to come from to sustain the war.

__________________Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

It's well established that Germany wasted a huge amount of resources on militarily useless projects. The V-1 and V-2 weapons programs are another two examples.

They were incredible..for the time, technical acheivments...but not worth anywhere near the resources they consumed.
Hitler was obssesed with the idea he could ,by bombing the UK, break the Allied will to fight. It failed in 1940, when Germany had the edge in the air, and there was simply no chance in hell of it working in 1944.
What might might have been an even more damaging diversion was Hitlers insistence that the emphasis in Germany's Jet production be put on bombers instead of fighters. That delayed the ME262 by nearly a year.

Mikister throws in the following snippet of text:
February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

He does this without giving a link and it is clear why he does this, namely to be able to quote out of context:

March 7, 1942: The Jewish question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are 11,000,O00Jews still in Europe. To begin with, they will have to be concentrated in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war. In any case there can be no peace in Europe until every Jew has been eliminated from the continent.

There is not a hint of a genocide, he just wanted to get rid of them, since Germany did not want to go down the path of Russia where the Jews had introduced this horrible bolshevism, a fact even acknowledged by Churchill (Sunday Herald article from the twenties).

Regarding the quote from march 27, 1942, Mikister leaves something out on purpose. The context is not 'the final solution' (meaning deporting the Jews to the east) but Lublin:

March 27, 1942: . . . Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the Government General are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 percent can be used for forced labor.

First of all: the Germans acted ruthless in the East. It was here that the worst atrocities were committed and not in the camps. Revisionists generally come up with a number of 1 million Jews in total who died durng WW2 from unnatural causes and most of them as a result of the Einsatzgruppen. It should be said though that many Baltics and Ukrainians were all too willing to give the Germans a hand, keen as they were to take revenge for the massive atrocities that had been committed against them by the Bolsheviks during the years before the 'German liberation'. I have no problem with describing the German behavior as criminal. What is never taken into account though was the excessive criminality of their opponents. And here the Jews were no longer victims but perpetrators. But that's a topic about we will not hear very much from Spielberg, Lanzmann or Lipstadt.

They were incredible..for the time, technical acheivments...but not worth anywhere near the resources they consumed.
Hitler was obssesed with the idea he could ,by bombing the UK, break the Allied will to fight. It failed in 1940, when Germany had the edge in the air, and there was simply no chance in hell of it working in 1944.
What might might have been an even more damaging diversion was Hitlers insistence that the emphasis in Germany's Jet production be put on bombers instead of fighters. That delayed the ME262 by nearly a year.

The way I see it, Hitler was a totally incompetent strategist but he was unfortunately served by some very impressive generals and engineers (most of which were not member of the Nazi party, or only so out of convenience).

The BF109 was a great machine and so were the German tanks. Without their ability to cross the Ardennes, a feat inconceivable at the time, the battle of France would have been much more costly for Germany.

It's only when the first defeats started to arrive, due mostly to Hitler's poor strategy in ordering the invasion of the Soviet Union, that his paranoid nature lead him to get more and more involved in the strategic decisions, wrenching the commands from his more capable generals, which only hastened his fall.

Mikister throws in the following snippet of text:
February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.
He does this without giving a link and it is clear why he does this, namely to be able to quote out of context:http://www.codoh.info/trials/tristagch2.html
Regarding the feb 14 quote here is another one, a few weeks later:March 7, 1942: The Jewish question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are 11,000,O00Jews still in Europe. To begin with, they will have to be concentrated in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war. In any case there can be no peace in Europe until every Jew has been eliminated from the continent.
There is not a hint of a genocide, he just wanted to get rid of them, since Germany did not want to go down the path of Russia where the Jews had introduced this horrible bolshevism, a fact even acknowledged by Churchill (Sunday Herald article from the twenties).
Regarding the quote from march 27, 1942, Mikister leaves something out on purpose. The context is not 'the final solution' (meaning deporting the Jews to the east) but Lublin:March 27, 1942: . . . Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the Government General are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 percent can be used for forced labor.
First of all: the Germans acted ruthless in the East. It was here that the worst atrocities were committed and not in the camps. Revisionists generally come up with a number of 1 million Jews in total who died durng WW2 from unnatural causes and most of them as a result of the Einsatzgruppen. It should be said though that many Baltics and Ukrainians were all too willing to give the Germans a hand, keen as they were to take revenge for the massive atrocities that had been committed against them by the Bolsheviks during the years before the 'German liberation'. I have no problem with describing the German behavior as criminal. What is never taken into account though was the excessive criminality of their opponents. And here the Jews were no longer victims but perpetrators. But that's a topic about we will not hear very much from Spielberg, Lanzmann or Lipstadt.

Frack, you are sickening.

How many Jews did you think served it the Red Army?

And how would your little story account for the genocide in the West? Far outside of the Russian controlled territories?

Doesnt matter if it was 1 million or 6 million or 12 million.
it doesnt matter if they was gassed or shot.
It doesnt matter if they were jews or roma , they are Human beeings.

It does make a difference whether 1 or 12 million persons died. And it certainly should be considered how they died.

The Dictator shows a gruesome picture, probably originating from Belsen, but without comment. So what does this picture show? The Dictator gives no comment but he wants to suggest that these people (he does not identify them) died in 'the holocaust'.

Here is a documentary about Belsen made by the Allies shortly after they librated the camps. Or rather made by horror specialist Alfred Hitchcock.

These pictures admittedly show horrible scenes. But what happened? How did these people die? By gas? By shooting? No, by typhus. If you watch the film attentively you see many healthy people walking around and laughing. They are not underfed. The commentator talks about thousands of deaths. That is probably true considering the size pile of bodies. But these were the last weeks of the war. Everything had collapsed including the supply of fuel to cremate the bodies. And then the only thing that remains is to pile up the bodies. There is not a hint that these people were murdered in cold blood. You could even reason that these people were indirectly and unintentionally killed by the actions of the Allies with their bombing campagnes (often against civilian targets).

Another point is that these dead people are not Jews but Poles and Russians. The Jews generally followed the Germans westwards voluntarily (famous example professional swindler Elie Wiesel) to avoid ending up in Soviet territory. Does somebody want to claim that the Germans had an extermination program for these people as well?

It does make a difference whether 1 or 12 million persons died. And it certainly should be considered how they died.

The Dictator shows a gruesome picture, probably originating from Belsen, but without comment. So what does this picture show? The Dictator gives no comment but he wants to suggest that these people (he does not identify them) died in 'the holocaust'.

Here is a documentary about Belsen made by the Allies shortly after they librated the camps. Or rather made by horror specialist Alfred Hitchcock.

These pictures admittedly show horrible scenes. But what happened? How did these people die? By gas? By shooting? No, by typhus. If you watch the film attentively you see many healthy people walking around and laughing. They are not underfed. The commentator talks about thousands of deaths. That is probably true considering the size pile of bodies. But these were the last weeks of the war. Everything had collapsed including the supply of fuel to cremate the bodies. And then the only thing that remains is to pile up the bodies. There is not a hint that these people were murdered in cold blood. You could even reason that these people were indirectly and unintentionally killed by the actions of the Allies with their bombing campagnes (often against civilian targets).

Another point is that these dead people are not Jews but Poles and Russians. The Jews generally followed the Germans westwards voluntarily (famous example professional swindler Elie Wiesel) to avoid ending up in Soviet territory. Does somebody want to claim that the Germans had an extermination program for these people as well?

Irrelevant. It's about the leadership, the people who killed the tsar, the ideologues. Read Churchill about it. Or this honest Jewish fellow Sever plocker: "We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish". And that happened before Hitler.

Quote:

And how would your little story account for the genocide in the West? Far outside of the Russian controlled territories?

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.